the removal of the doubts of many sceptical men; and when they are advanced thus far, the grace of God, assisting a teachable disposition, and a pious intention, may carry them on to perfection.

Ás to Ruth, you do an injury to her character. She was not a strolling country girl. She had been married ten years; and being left a widow without children, she accompanied her mother-in-law, returning into her native country, out of which, with her husband and her two sons, she had been driven by a famine. The disturbances in France have driven many men with their families to America; if, ten years hence, a woman, having lost her husband and her children, should return to France with a daughter-inlaw, would you be justified in calling the daughter-inlaw a strolling country girl?-But she "crept slily to bed to her cousin Boaz."-I do not find it so in the history-As a person imploring protection, she laid herself down at the foot of an aged kinsman's bed; and she rose up with as much innocence as she had laid herself down. She was afterwards married. to Boaz, and reputed by all her neighbours a virtuous woman; and they were more likely to know her character than you are. Whoever reads the book of Ruth, bearing in mind the simplicity of ancient manners, will find it an interesting story of a poor young woman, following in a strange land the advice, and affectionately attaching herself to the fortunes, of the mother of her deceased husband.

The two books of Samuel come next under your review. You proceed to show that these books were not written by Samuel; that they are anonymous, and thence, you conclude, without authority. I need not here repeat what I have said upon the fallacy of your conclusion; and as to your proving that the books were not written by Samuel, you might have spared yourself some trouble, if you had recollected, that it is generally admitted that Samuel did not write any part of the second book which bears his name, and only a part

of the first. It would indeed have been an inquiry not undeserving your notice, in many parts of your work, to have examined what was the opinion of learned men respecting the authors of the several books of the Bible: you would have found, that you were in many places fighting a phantom of your own raising, and proving what was generally admitted. Very little certainty, I think, can at this time be obtained on this subject; but that you may have some knowledge of what has been conjectured by men of judgement, I will quote to you a passage from Dr. Hartley's Observations on Man. The author himself does not vouch for the truth of his observation, for he begins it with a supposition." I suppose then, that the Pentateuch consists of the writings of Moses, put together by Samuel, with a very few additions; that the books of Joshua and Judges were, in like manner, collected by him; and the book of Ruth, with the first part of the first book of Samuel, written by him; that the latter part of the first book of Samuel, and the second book, were written by the prophets who succeeded Samuel, suppose Nathan and Gad; that the books of Kings and Chronicles are extracts from the records of the succeeding prophets, concerning their own times, and from the public genealogical tables, made by Ezra; that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are collections of like records, some written by Ezra and Nehemiah, and some by their predecessors; that the book of Esther was written by some eminent Jew, in or near the times of the transactions there recordedperhaps Mordecai; the book of Job, by a Jew, of an uncertain time; the Psalms by David, and other pious persons; the books of Proverbs and Canticles, by SoJomon; the book of Ecclesiastes by Solomon, or perhaps by a Jew of latter times, speaking in his person, but not with an intention to make him pass for the author; the prophecies, by the prophets whose names they bear; and the books of the New Testament, by the persons to whom they are usually ascribed.”—I

have produced this passage to you, not merely to show you that, in a great part of your work, you are attacking what no person is interested in defending; but to convince you, that a wise and good man, and a firın believer in revealed religion, for such was Dr. Hartley, and no priest, did not reject the anonymous books of the Old Testament as books without authority. I shall not trouble either you or myself with any more observations on that head: you may ascribe the two books of Kings, and the two books of Chronicles, to what authors you please: I am satisfied with knowing that the annals of the Jewish nation were written in the time of Samuel, and probably in all succeeding times, by men of ability, who lived in or near the times of which they write. Of the truth of this cbservation we have abundant proof, not only from the testimony of Josephus, and of the writers of the Talmuds, but from the Old Testament itself. I will content myself with citing a few places-"Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the scer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer."

2

Chron. xxix. 29. Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer?" Chron. ix. 29.-"Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer, concerning genealogies?" 2 Chron. xii. 15.-" Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold they are written in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani." 2 Chron. xx. 34.-Is it possible for writers to give a stronger evidence of their veracity, than by referring their readers to the books from which they had extracted the materials of their history?

"The two books of Kings," you say, "are little more than an history of assassinations, treachery, and war." That the kings of Israel and Judah were many

of them very wicked persons, is evident from the his tory which is given of them in the Bible; but it ought to be remembered, that their wickedness is not to be attributed to their religion; nor were the people of Israel chosen to be the people of God, on account of their wickedness; nor was their being chosen, a cause of it. One may wonder, indeed, that, having experienced so many singular marks of God's goodness towards their nation, they did not at once become, and continue to be (what however they have long been), strenuous advocates for the worship of one only God, the maker of heaven and earth. This was the purpose for which they were chosen, and this purpose has been accomplished. For above three-andtwenty hundred years, the Jews have uniformly witnessed to all the nations of the earth, the unity of God, and his abomination of idolatry. But as you look upon "the appellation of the Jews being God's chosen people as a lie, which the priests and leaders of the Jews had invented to cover the baseness of their own characters, and which Christian priests, sometimes as corrupt, and often as cruel, have professed to believe," I will plainly state to you the reasons which induce me to believe that it is no lie; and I hope they will be such reasons as you will not attribute either to cruelty or corruption.

To any one contemplating the universality of things, and the fabric of nature, this globe of earth, with the men dwelling on its surface, will not appear exclusive of the divinity of their souls) of more importance than an hillock of ants; all of which, some with corn, some with eggs, some without any thing, run hither and thither, bustling about a little heap of dust. This is a thought of the immortal Bacon; and it is admirably fitted to humble the pride of philosophy, attempting to prescribe forms to the proceedings, and bounds to the attributes of God. We may as easily circumscribe infinity, as penetrate the secret purposes of the Almighty. There are but two ways by which I can ac

quire any knowledge of the nature of the Supreme Being-by reason, and by revelation; to you, who reject revelation, there is but one. Now my reason informs me, that God has made a great difference between the kinds of animals, with respect to their capaeity of enjoying happiness. Every kind is perfect in its order; but if we compare different kinds together, one will appear to be greatly superior to another. An animal, which has but one sense, has but one source of happiness; but if it be supplied with what is suited to that sense, it enjoys all the happiness of which it is capable, and is in its mature perfect. Other sorts of animals, which have two or three senses, and which have also abundant means of gratifying them, enjoy twice or thrice as much happiness as those do which have but one. In the same sort of animals there is a great difference amongst individuals, one having the senses more perfect, and the body less subject to disease, than another. Hence, if I were to form a judgement of the divine goodness by this use of my reason, I could not but say that it was partial and unequal. What shall we say then? is God unjust? God forbid!" His goodness may be unequal, without being imperfect; it must be estimated from the whole, and not from a part. Every order of beings is so sufficient for its own happiness, and so conducive at the same time to the happiness of every other, that in one view it seems to be made for itself alone, and in another not for itself, but for every other. Could we comprehend the whole of the immense fabric which God bath formed, I am persuaded that we should see nothing but perfection, harmony, and beauty, in every part of it; but whilst we dispute about parts, we neglect the whole, and discern nothing but supposed anomalies and defects. The maker of a watch, or the builder of a ship, is not to be blamed because a spectator cannot discover either the beauty or the use of disjointed parts. And shall we dare to accuse God of injustice, for not having distributed the gifts of nature in